I just realized there was a typo of sorts in what I said. In the above
quoted text, the latter usage of "hashes" should be "classes".
···
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 07:49:45PM +0900, Ryan Davis wrote:
On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:10 , Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 05:18:50PM +0900, Ryan Davis wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 27, 2012, at 10:43 , Chad Perrin wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 06:31:38PM +0900, Gunther Diemant wrote:
>>>>> You're right, that's much better -- apart from the fact I have yet to
>>>>> come up with a single good reason for dynamic class names.
>>>>
>>>> Test cases in a dsl test language like MiniTest/Spec or RSpec
>>>>
>>>> describe "Foo" do
>>>> end
>>>> #=> Class FooTest < MiniTest::TestCase
>>>
>>> Why is that better than storing unnamed classes in a hash with keys for
>>> the "names" instead of actually, dynamically assigning names to new
>>> hashes?
>>
>> [...]
>
> So . . . you are not only a trollish jackass, but also deficient in your
> understanding of English. Thanks for the update.Yes, I'm obviously deficient in my understanding of English... You're welcome.
Why compare "storing [things] in a hash" with "dynamically [storing
(other?) things] to new hashes"?
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]